<aside> You’re dead wrong on the “Sacred Cause” thing, but that’s a pretty funny website. Some of the descriptions are dead-on, like The Royals and Troglodyte.</aside>
I’m sure you won’t be surprised to hear me say this, but I happen to think Israel is putting the Caterpillars to good use. If you commit a suicide bombing or help those who do, you deserve far worse than being given advance notice and then having your house being bulldozed. This thread is based on the assumption that Israel ‘weaponizing’ the bulldozers is somehow a bad thing. I don’t think it is.
If you do, then you’d probably take the same position that the anti-gun folks take: it’s the gun manufacturer’s fault if a kid blows his head off “playing” with a gun or if a psycho decides to shoot up his high school.
As already mentionned by several posters, it depends widely
- on your political stance on the issue. Assuming that the driver knows there’s somebody in front of his vehicle (be it a caterpillar demolishing houses in Palestine, another one demolishing buildings that old stubborn people refuse to vacate in the USA, or a tank in Tienanmen), he’s definitely responsible for the death of this person. For instance, in the present case, he could simply have said “I refuse to operate a caterpillar while there are people all the time trying to get in my way, it’s way too dangerous”.
Now, you might think the protestor was misguided in trying to prevent the operation, but it’s a totally different issue. If you place yourself knowingly and willingly in a situation where you’re likely to kill someone, you can’t just say “it’s all the dead guy’s fault’s” and skip all responsability. So, you’d better be 100% positive that what you’re doing is worth the possible or likely death of someone else.
-On this woman motivations. You’re calling her “suicidal” because she put her like at stakes. But as already mentionned, soldiers also put their life at stakes. Do you call them “suicidal” by default for not deserting despite knowing the ennemy could attack, for instance? I strongly doubt she was suicidal, actually.
Either she didn’t fully realize how dangerous was what she was doing, or overestimated her ability to avoid the caterpillar, anyway fully expected to be safe, an this would be a faulty judgment, not a suicidal behavior, either she understood the risks involved and nevertheless did so because she thought the cause she was defending was worth risking her life. In which case, it would be a heroical, not suicidal behavior (even though people disagreeing with her stance are unlikely to accept using the word “heroical”).
That’s not very different from the guy who standed in front of tanks in Tienamen, really. Except that the tankist didn’t run over him, but the situation is similar, despite once again, the fact that you could agree or not with the stance of this woman in Palestine and agree or not with the stance of this man in Beijing.
In the part of your post that I quoted, you seem not to notice the fact that plenty of people have risked their life to defend a cause, ot not to realize that what happens in Palestine isn’t considered trivial by most people, on either side. It’s not just about “stupidely” risking your life to avoid losing a “replacable object”. Especially since this woman wasn’t the owner of the house. It’s about a major political issue. Or else, what were these stupid Israeli soldiers doing there, risking being killed by snipers just for the sake of demolishing a stupid house?
Nope. You 're not getting it. The analogies are perfectly accurate. If you really want to, let’s assume, that instead of using a gun and threatening to shot you, the burglar is for some reason using a bulldozer and threaten to squash you if you don’t comply.
Once again, the issue falls down to “does one believe that she was morally wright or wrong when she was trying to prevent the demolition of this house?”. In other words, was she the trespasser risking his life and shot down by the property owner, or the property owner risking his life and shot down by the burglar? I know what your opinion is on this topic, but just imagine a situation where the person in front of the bulldozer is supporting a cause you’re agreeing 100% with, and the guys with bulldozers are people you normally classify as “evildoers”. Would you still make the same comments? I don’t believe so for an instant.
That’s totally irrelevant. Nobody authorized the student to stay in Tienamen, and nobody authorized a guy living in the american colonies to revolt against the english crown, either. It doesn’t make necessarily one or the other foolish for acting the way they did, does it? Nor the morality nor the foolishness of an action is determined by the existence (or lack thereof) of a proper authorization by the established (or self-proclaimed) authorities.
The only difference is between a violent and non-violent action course of action (earlier in your post, you’re stating that some poster’s analogy was a bad one because she wasn’t a soldier). Does it mean that in your view, facing a situation that they condemn people choosing a military course of action are automatically acting sensibly while people choosing a non-violent course of action are automatically acting foolishly? While should we judge differently people risking their life trying to block bulldozers and people risking their life shooting at bulldozers?
And your post is based on the assumption that only people commiting crimes or helping commiting crimes have their houses bulldozed.
Bad example, since Apache helicopters don’t have many use apart from being used as weapons. So, in this case, I would say that Boeing definitely have a responsability. They can’t claim “we thought they would use our Apaches to build roads”.
Choosing to produce and sell (or to operate) weapons isn’t a neutral choice. It’s not at all the same thing as producing vacuum cleaners (or bulldozers, for that matter).
Well put, Polerius.
And another total logical fallacy (which I don’t think you can possibly be stupid enough not to understand, so I can only conclude you are being disingenuous, Yeticus) is this:
A, at a certain level of intensity and after a certain time leads to B
A is occuring.
Therefore we have reached B.
Obvious tosh, unless you can provide evidence that A has in fact continued at a the appropriate level of intensity and for long enough to reach B. Applying this to your position, Yeticus, we get:
Activity at a certain level of intensity and after a certain time leads to being "pretty damn tired"
Corrie engaged in activity
Therefore Corrie was pretty damn tired.
A position which is notably dumbass.
How good a debater I am is not the issue. I asked you about an analogy, you answered. Now I have asked you about a more general proposition.
Yes or no, Yeticus?
Yeticus, Yeticus, Yeticus. I have never at any time denied that activity leads eventually to being pretty damn tired if the activity is strenuous enough. I’m not and never have been looking for evidence of that. I’m looking for evidence that Corrie had reached that point.
So many assumptions, so many guesses, so little evidence.
Quite. So unless you know how long brakes have been used and how hard, you don’t know if they’ve worn out.
Just as unless you can prove that Corrie had been engaging in strenuous activity for an inordinate period, you can’t prove she was pretty damn tired.
I wish I was superior, but that dream went wayside decades ago…I get by with what I have.
Actually, this is a better description of my viewpoint:
A = Person exerts him/herself physically and/or mentally
B = Person experiences some level of fatigue, physically and/or mentally
C = Person experiencing fatigue has an increased chance of making poor judgement/decisions
D = Poor judgement/decisions increase the chance of bad/unintended consequences
A leads to B (This is a given, otherwise give me a cite that proves the opposite)
B leads to C
C leads to D
This also applied to the driver as well as to Corrie, as I have already stated. They BOTH made mistakes.
Maybe he could of refused, or maybe he was ordered to continue or be disciplined by his superiors. I’m not sure what happened there.
I never said it was “all the dead guys fault”. Both sides made mistakes that lead to the incident. He didn’t kill her from the outset, so both sides were more careful at first, but as time went on, the conditions became more dangerous, primarily for Corrie, since she was more exposed to risk of death or injury than the driver was.
I have addressed each comment previously. I didn’t call her suicidal (unless she stated that as her dying words after being ran over that she would do the same thing all over again with no regrets - then she would have been suicidal at that point in time).
And I would agree with you there, except I would not call her actions either suicidal or heroical, instead just plain foolish.
Similar, but the Tank Man held up the column for about a half an hour, on even pavement and then later climbed on to talk to the driver of the front tank who was not in danger from any snipers. The incident involving Corrie was 6 times longer, in slightly uneven dirt terrain and Corrie having actually contact with the moving D-9 at times when standing on top of the rubble. Those are crucial factors that made Corrie’s game of chicken more dangerous with the machine, although we’re not sure what became of Tank Man. He may have been executed much later for the incident; nobody knows for sure.
I notice that many people risk their lives everyday in all aspects of life. I also notice that some people think things through before they act. This separates courageous behavior from foolish behavior from cowardice behavior.
Again, both sides made mistakes.
Clair, you do bring up good points about risking life for causes. I just think there might have been better ways to do it in Corrie’s case, and I agree that she didn’t plan for it to end this way. I also think the IDF didn’t plan for it to end this way either.
No, not necessarily. Each incident whether it is violent or non-violent, stands on it’s own merits and the people involved and how they act determines whether their behavior was courageous, foolish, cowardice, etc…by prudently evaluating the risk/reward of each incident…from World War II down to boycotting a bakery for the type of sweetner they use.
Did Corrie’s (and the rest of her group) actions save the houses that were above the terrorist’s smuggling tunnels? Did this group make other attempts to delay the bulldozing by appealing off-site (before scheduled bulldozing) with the IDF to save her friends house? Could they prove to the IDF that her friend’s house was not part of the smuggling network which should have been saved? I ask these questions because I don’t really know the answers. Had she went to great lengths before resorting to playing chicken, then I might have more sympathy to her cause.
I get the impression that some posters here think that I am an Israeli sympathizer and therefore would automatically label Corrie as an idiot for being a Palestinian sympathizer. I do not fall in either category. I would very much like to see both sides come to the realization that both sides accept the presence and respect each other and stop senseless violence against each other. It took 40 years to get to this point and probably another 40 to resolve it IF they stop this deathspiral now. We can all dream, right?
Last year, my son played on a hockey team with a Palestinian-born kid with the initials R.H., a 16 year old. Good sized kid, good/great academics, respectful towards his parents, coaches and teammates. Being the manager/coach of the team, I spent time talking to him and his parents over the course of the season and learned more about them. I learned that their parents left the West Bank about 9 years ago since they have lost family members in skirmishes in the previous years before they left and they wanted their 2 sons to live a peaceful life with less violence and avoid getting dragged into the cycle of violence in the West Bank. The mother was always worried that hockey was too “violent” a sport, but let her son play because he absolutely loved the game. He was totally accepted by the team and was successful as the season wore on…there was only one problem…he was taunted by the other team (“terrorist”, “bomb-boy”, etc.) which got him angered and retaliated by taking a roughing or fighting penalty. As a manager (and scorekeeper), R.H. had to sit next to me in the box and told me what happened…this took place about 12 times during the course of the season. It took quite a bit of energy to keep R.H. focused on the game with all of this ignorance flying around him, but I helped him prevail over his anger and earn respect from other teams (but not all). It took energy from both sides to calm down and see him as another player, not an outcast. The parents were worried at times about his issues, but I thought it would be better to stand up to the ignorance and let his kid become accepted, not rejected or outcasted. Because of him and his parents, I’ve learned a little something of the Palestinian plight. They want what everyone else wants, some peace and security. It took this family half a globe to find it though. They are just as shocked as we are to find the lengths that some people go through to make a point.
Actually, the OP is more like suing the book publisher.
You’re drawing some awfully fine distinctions here.
And your suggestion that if she had re-affirmed her actions as she died she then would have been suicidal is just silly. The key point of suicide is intent to die by one’s own actions. Taking risks for a cause doesn’t constitude suicide. Period. It just isn’t what the word means.
Your patronising assumption that Corrie hadn’t thought before she acted is just that. She and her colleagues had been playing this game for days. They might well have thought on reasonable grounds that they could continue to get away with it. They may well have realised that it involved risks. They might well have decided that (according to their own mores and goals) those risks were worth it. Your implication she hadn’t thought things through throws more light on your predilictions than it does on Corrie.
Other questions that you could ask are: how do you know that she didn’t go to great lengths as you suggest she should? Shouldn’t you find that out before you label her actions merely foolish? I must say I think that you have a naive view of the conflict in question.
Sure, but the key words are “experiences some level of…” You earlier said that Corrie would have been “pretty damn tired”. You have no evidence for that, beyond supposition.
I’m still waiting on an answer to this:
Wouldn’t be much lawn left after the first time you drive one across it!